Then it goes back full circle to what's defined as "incitement to hatred and violence" (the recent tweets about killing Trump fall into that category for example).

Or we apply the point of view of some people here and decide that "hate" can only apply to certain categories of people and not others....

Where do you see Peter ;) (thanks aaand corrected ;) )

The reason why I brought it up, believe could include again anything.
Playing devils advocate here and only as an example (for purpose)
Every Clinton/Trump-supporter could claim: Their believe is being targeted.

Just pointing it out, in the moment having no other word either.

Actually, in the Belgian law against discrimination, "beliefs" also includes political opinions so one shouldn't be ostracized because he/she has far-left/right political beliefs (and all the spectrum in-between)

Actually dtgreene had this covered with:
repeated
as another trigger. If somebody posts once a stupid thing, yeah, been there, done it myself ;)
But with the repeated trigger included (across varies days/threads) THIS would make the difference, or?

So if somebody attacks various people (so a group) would also be seen as repeated, right?

Never thought that Belgium politicians were so bad and attack each other like in Korea (?) :P

Yeah, both are actually the same issue. Words get meanings in contexts. They depend on intent. Slur words are often used ironically by antiracists (see the hilarious writings of François Cavanna), and are sometimes reappropriated by the target ("nigger", "pédé", etc). Likewise, racists enjoy code words or code phrases, or innuendos, and generally hypocritically "plausible deniability".

So, it cannot be moderated by a computer, or by a bureaucrat just ticking words from a list. A human has to be there to understand the message and its contextual implications. Racists love to keep it formal, to pretend that they do not understand the difference between their usage of a word and another usage, to claim there are double standards each time they feel clever about "getting around" formal rules (or expecting meaninglessly litteral interpretations of them) and get called out on it. But what matters is the intention, the rhetorical agenda, and manipulative intent is pretty transparent after a while. Especially from forumgoers who are openly supporting xenophobic parties, or go on explicit rants from time to time.

The problem is that we're discussing of separate issues under the definition of "hate speeches":

1. Insults or Harrasment towards GOG users (like for Dtgreene's case) then it's a no-brainer => ban/kick the offender like it's done on almost all internet forums.

2. Insults/slurs/threats against categories of people (like "sandniggers" from one side or "kill the extremists" from the other side) => It's up to GOG to define the boundaries.

3. Posting rational things in a discussion in a polite manner but which offends some people => I guess this is this point where GOG users are currently mostly disagreeing as it doesn't fall into the "suable by law" category and is only defined by personal perceptions/beliefs

You are right, it could include more or less everything. And yet I think it should be there. If these people repeatedly get insulted or threatened, because of what they believe it could very well be considered as hate crime. It doesn't mean that you can't discuss the believes in a civilized matter, but once it's over and over just name-calling or insults, it gets a problem.

Example: Someone could have the believe that abortion in the first months of pregnacy should be legal for any reason. You can of course discuss that, but if the person gets repeatedly insulted as baby-killer or people claim that the person should be killed, because of his believe it could very well considered hate speech. Works the other way around as well of course (but in that case it would often be covered by "religion").

Well, of course the problem lies on the definition of hate speech. I don't think anybody (besides some nutjobs) wants to go around promoting genocide, and I can agree with banning that. But, "everything offensive and aggressive against a certain group of people" is not a definition I can stand by, as everyone is part of some group and anyone can take offense at anything. It's essentially impossible to post if I need to make sure there's absolutely nobody on the entire planet that could possibly take offense on what I'm about to say.
I feel like that would work, yes.

He did say incitement to violence only, nothing about hatred. Not on that post at least.

Most "hate speech" I see these days is aimed at people with other opinions rather than what you listed.
The most intelerant people are always those that want everybody on their side or gtfo without exceptions.

I don't think that I've ever seen someone who was offended when rational things were discussed in a polite manner (but of course I might be wrong).

Problem is that discussions often start this way, but after a while get heated or the usual "trolls" come in and start name-calling. And at this point without moderation things go downhill very fast.
Take another look. In fact I didn't list any opinions.

I say it like this because it's commonly used in the French law language in a procedural way so the notions are tied together.

BTW, good to see you back in our country. May you take some rest from all your travellings ;)

I'm just as much offended by censorship as by rudeness.
The solution is usually not being around humans too often which works well for me.

One thing's for sure, if GOG found the key to classifying all hate speech off the bat and automatically, they would have found the holy grail of forum moderation. There's hardly a term more fuzzy than "hate speech".

There's clear cut terminology of hate and then there's less clear cut. When I report a post that calls refugees "underling filth" (clear cut nazi terminology), GOG removes the post two weeks later. Oh joy! If I report a post that calls refugees "animals" and "cattle" supposed to die at the border (massively dehumanizing), nothing ever happens.

Conspiracy theories are universally used to incite hatred against certain groups. What if a member spams these by the hundreds daily? What if a member consistently throws ludicrous brainwash crap like the Nazi gun control theory in your face? Restrict or let run free?

Insults and conspiracy theories against forum members can be clearly identified and could be off limits. What about insults and conspiracy theories about GOG officials? Against moderators? Against game developers in particular? Don't they have the same rights? I mean, step into any Double Fine discussion and you will drown in those things, step into the gamergate thread and they don't even know the actual names of many of the people they call cunt cuck faggot or SJW. But restrict any of that and you'll have the censorship stamp on your forehead faster than you can say "freeze peach".

And then there's bullying, branding and ostracism, which can happen in infinitely subtle ways. I've met some really obvious "you're a dishonest troll" bully beginner course members, but also relentless masters of those trades here, who are not beneath seizing on any of your posts and interpreting it as an insult towards the entire community in order to incite outrage. How would we even start to classify these things?

Honestly, I have no idea what measure would work for this community. The situation is approaching chan culture at light speed. Scalpel precision work will achieve nothing. Putting an axe to the present "discussion culture", on the other hand, as necessary as it may be to see any kind of result, may result in losing customers. Neither is a real option.

Of course, the entire reputation system will have to go before anything else could ever be implemented with a modicum of success. Rep abuse as well as the resulting witch hunts are a sport over here. The rep system is not salvageable.

..ok. From experience as mod on a forum where I eventually did not make a single moderator action for a year:

1. No Americans, sanctimonious jerks, virtual sheriffs or stupid people on the mod team. The reason for this is that when you start a campaign for a war on trolls, or set out to remove all problems, etc., you essentially attract them and create troll seeds where none existed before. Perfectly normal people lose their bloody mind when they get faced with something like this: "Hi!!! I'm a moderator!!!! Let's make the board a better place for everyone, yaayyyy!!!". Which is perfectly fucking understandable.

2. Talk to people like they are real people. Set the standard as a mod, and posters know what to expect. Technical rules in that sense are often worse than no rules, because you imply that as long as you can avoid the technicalities everything's fine, and all is forgiven. Conversely, when someone does get the brunt of the lawbook, or leaflet, or whatever, they don't feel punished either.

3. Have your "moderating action" discussions in public. The only reason you would want to make moderator discussions private is because you want to hide the fact that you're a stupid little shit with too much power and no ability to wield it. Like your average president of a certain country for the last 25 years at least. Just saying.

4. Discuss with "problem-people" in public. Don't pressure people into a corner, to make them prove at a critical junction that they can contribute to the overall forum, etc. Just talk to people like they're normal people, and that your demand of them are sensible. Sustain that by defending your demand, if any, and certainly your view - in public. And then admit you are wrong if your argument is not sufficient to defend your point of view. No one loses face that way, unless you're a sanctmonious dipshit. The problem is, of course, that you can't be a childish little moron who can't argue with anyone without screaming your head off. Which is the one problem you run into when recruiting mods - only idiots want to be mods.

5. Don't enable popularity contests. Remember: Even if it doesn't seem that way, or people look and act like they are 60 years old, and have actually retired and are literally sitting in a peaceful home by a lake somewhere counting swans - when they log on to the internet they are going to be an envious and frustrated 6 year-old again. Given encouragement, anyone will turn into a stupid sheep when they log on online. So as a mod, the last - the very last - thing you should do is say things like this: "let's have a poll on it to decide this". There is no subject of any kind that can be settled in a discussion forum with a poll outside: "how many people are here".

6. Look at an online forum in this way: it can potentially reach so many people that the ones who sign up may very well be the most brilliant people on the planet, with such a wide variety of skills and expertises, that there is no reason why not every single member here shouldn't be a genius. As opposed to "my gawd, this forum is free for everyone, I bet all the poor people will squat here".

7. Employ your mods to do something else than just moderating. In the military, you put people to dig trenches, or just holes in the ground, to stop them from doing any damage when they randomly trump around everywhere else. There's no point to it, but it keeps the soldiers busy and happy. Rather than sad and trigger-happy. This is exactly the same principle you need with moderators on a forum: have them work on digests or newsbits, small creative projects or discussion topics. Not only will it keep them out of trouble, it is also a way to let the community get to know the mods from a different angle than "obey me now, or face my wratthh!!".

Follow these simple rules, and I guarantee you that you will see the number of moderating actions drop, and the need for interference from moderators practically disappear. Which then of course also is tied to the mood on the board in the sense that people accept more outlandish opinion than they normally would. As well as state their opinions and views in a less provoking matter as before. The height of the roof becomes higher, to put it like that. Which should be easy to accept, since we don't even see people in real life.

The drawback with this process is that people who only enjoy trolling and ego-trip worship will have to go back to the comment fields on Kotaku again to get their fix. As the other community won't have any place for annoying dipshits like that.